Electronic Theses and Dissertation

PENGAWASAN EKSTERNAL KOMISI YUDISIAL
BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 22 TAHUN 2004 DALAM KAITAN DENGAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI
NOMOR 005/PUU-IV/2006

Noor Uud Aprio Werry*
Prof. Dr. Eddy Purnama, S.H., M.Hum.**
Dr. M. Saleh Sjafei, S.H., M.Si.***

Pasal 24B ayat (1) UUD 1945, menyebutkan “Komisi Yudisial bersifat mandiri yang berwenang mengusulkan pengangkatan hakim agung dan mempunyai wewenang lain dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakan kehormatan, keluhuran martabat, serta perilaku hakim”. Secara hirarki diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial, Pasal 1 angka 5, menyebutkan “Hakim adalah Hakim Agung dan hakim pada badan peradilan di semua lingkungan peradilan yang berada di bawah Mahkamah Agung serta hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945”. Komisi Yudisial mempunyai wewenang menegakan kehormatan dan keluhuran martabat serta menjaga seluruh perilaku hakim diuji dalam judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia dengan registrasi nomor 005/PUU-IV/2006. Masalah pokok penelitian ialah (1) Apakah pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dapat merubah substansi Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945? (2) Apakah konsekuensi yuridis terhadap pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? (3) Apakah implikasi terhadap keberadaan Komisi Yudisial jika kewenangan pengawasan eksternalnya dibatasi?.
Penelitian sebagai penelitian dasar (basic research), bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menemukan (1) Pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dapat merubah substansi Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945. (2) Konsekuensi yuridis terhadap pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. (3) Implikasi terhadap keberadaan Komisi Yudisial jika kewenangan pengawasan eksternalnya dibatasi.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif, penelitian terhadap sistematika hukum dengan jenis pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (the Statute Approach), dengan cara: (a) Taraf sinkronisasi vertikal dan horizontal (rules approach) keberlakuan hukum positif, (b) Pendekatan interpretasi sistematik peraturan (systematic rules approach) diimbangi dengan penafsiran teleologikal (teleological) menurut makna dan tujuan, (c) menggunakan metode konstruksi hukum (argumentum acontrario) untuk menghubungkan antara peraturan, maksud, dan tujuan dibuatnya peraturan perundang-undangan.

* Mahasiswa
** Pembimbing Utama
*** Pembimbing Anggota

Sumber data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data skunder yang berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Data dipeoleh dari bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, dan bahan hukum tersier, selanjutnya data tersebut dianalisis menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif yaitu analisis isi.
Kesimpulan dari penelitian menunjukan bahwa pertama putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak dapat merubah substansi UUD 1945 berdasarkan hirarki perundang-undangan, perubahan substansi UUD 1945 hanya dapat dilaksanakan secara prosedural oleh lembaga MPR, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi secara substansi berimplikasi merubah makna kata Hakim pada Pasal 24 B Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 dan penafsiran hakim konstitusi dalam pasal-pasal UUD 1945 dapat dilakukan dengan tujuan menguatkan nilai-nilai Pancasila dan Pembukaan UUD 1945. Kedua konsekuensi yuridis terhadap pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi antara lain, pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial merupakan supporting institution Mahkamah Agung, subyek hukum pengawasan hakim tidak mencakup Hakim Agung Mahkamah Agung dan Hakim Konstitusi Mahkamah Konstitusi, pengawasan eksternal Komisi Yudisial meliputi Hakim ad hoc di Mahkamah Agung dan Badan Peradilan dibawahnya, merekomendasikan Presiden dan DPR untuk merubah UU KY melalui langkah-langkah penyempurnaan dengan melakukan sinkronisasi UU Kekuasaan Kehakiman, UU Mahkamah Agung, dan UU Mahkamah Konstitusi serta undang-undang lain yang terkait sistem peradilan. Ketiga implikasi terhadap keberadaan Komisi Yudisial jika kewenangan pengawasan eksternalnya dibatasi antara lain, fungsi pengawasan eksternal tidak lagi Hakim Agung di Mahkamah Agung dan Hakim Konstitusi di Mahkamah Konstitusi, hanya terdiri dari Hakim ad hoc di Mahkamah Agung dan Hakim Badan Peradilan dibawah Mahkamah Agung, tidak memiliki otoritas dalam penegakan hukum pelanggaran etik hakim (main institution), pengawasan dilakukan bersama Badan Pengawas Mahkamah Agung (Bawas M.A.), usulan tindakan sanksi diputuskan bersama Mahkamah Agung dalam Majelis Kehormatan Hakim dan Penjatuhan sanksi melalui mekanisme persetujuan dan Majelis Etik Mahkamah Agung bagi hakim yang melakukan pelanggaran etik, kewenangan Komisi Yudisial hanya berkaitan supporting institution Mahkamah Agung dalam seleksi calon hakim agung, seleksi pengangkatan hakim, penelitian putusan hakim, mengusulkan promosi dan mutasi hakim, peningkatan kapasitas dan kesejahteraan hakim, advokasi hakim.
Disarankan secara hierarkis dan seluruh peraturan pelaksanaannya dikaji secara komprehensif integral, dicarikan jalan keluar untuk menganulir (anuleeren) atau mendeponir (deponeeren) suatu keputusan hukum agar tidak menimbulkan berbagai interpretasi dan preseden buruk akibat penerapan hukum melalui proses adaptif dalam penyelesaian konflik hukum. Harmonisasi kekuasaan kehakiman ke dalam format ideal menjaga stabilitas sosial, politik dan kepastian hukum. Upaya untuk memperkuat keberadaan Komisi Yudisial dan perlindungan nilai-nilai lembaga pengawasan ekternal dalam rumpun kekuasaan kehakiman sesuai dengan original intent yang melatarbelakangi pembentukannya di dalam UUD 1945 untuk melaksanakan fungsi pengawasan seluruh kekuasaan kehakiman.

Kata Kunci : Komisi Yudisial, Pengawasan Eksternal, Mahkamah Konstitusi

EXTERNAL SUPERVISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION BASED ON LAW NUMBER 22 OF 2004 IN RELATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT VERDICT NUMBER 005/PUU-IV/2006 Noor Uud Aprio Werry* Prof. Dr. Eddy Purnama, S.H., M.Hum.** Dr. M. Saleh Sjafei, S.H., M.Si.*** Article 24B paragraph (1) of the Indonesian 1945 Constitution mentions, “The Judicial Commission is independent and authorized to propose the appointment of a Supreme Court justice and has other authority in order to maintain and uphold the honor, dignity, and conduct of judges”. Hierarchically which regulated in Act number 22, in 2004 concerning Judicial Commission, Article 1 number 5, mentions "Judges are Supreme Judges and judges in judicial bodies in all judicial environments under the Supreme Court as well as judges of the Constitutional Court as referred to in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945". The Judicial Commission has the authority to uphold the honor and dignity and maintain all the behavior of judges tested in the judicial review of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia with registration number 005/PUU-IV/2006. The main issues of the research are (1) Is the decision of the Constitutional Court change the substance of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945?, (2) What are the juridical consequences to the external supervision of the Judicial Commission following the decision of the Constitutional Court?, (3) What are the implications for the existence of Judicial Commission if its external supervisory authority is limited?. This basic research is expected to knows and find (1) The decision of the Constitutional Court change the substance of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, (2) Tthe juridical consequences to the external supervision of the Judicial Commission following the decision of the Constitutional Court, (3) The implications for the existence of Judicial Commission if its external supervisory authority is limited. The research method used in this study is normative juridical research method, research on legal systematics with the type of statutory approach (the Statute Approach) through (a) Vertical and horizontal synchronization level (rules approach) of positive legal applicability, (b) Interpretation of systematic rules approach is balanced with teleological interpretation according to meaning and purpose, (c) legal construction method (argumentum acontrario) to connect between regulations, the intent, and purpose of the making of laws and legislations. * Student ** Chairman of Supervising Committe *** Member of Supervising Committe The data source used in this study is secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Furthermore, data analysis carried out using qualitative approach through content analysis. The results of this study showed that, First, the decision of the Constitutional Court could not change the substance of the 1945 Constitution based on the hierarchy of legislation, the change in the substance of the 1945 Constitution can only be implemented procedurally by the MPR, and the decision of the Constitutional Court in substance implies changing the meaning of the word Judge in Article 24 B of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945. Second, the juridical consequences of external supervision of the Judicial Commission after the decision of the Constitutional Court include: (a) the external supervision of the Judicial Commission is the supporting institution of the Supreme Court, (b) The subject of the law of supervision of judges does not include the Supreme Court Justices and Constitutional Judges of the Constitutional Court, (c) The external supervision of the Judicial Commission includes ad hoc Judges in the Supreme Court and the Judiciary under it, (d) recommending the President and the DPR to amend the UU KY through improvements by synchronizing the Law of Judicial Power, the Supreme Court Law, and the Constitutional Court Act and other laws related to the justice system. Third, the implications of the Judicial Commission if its external supervisory authority is limited are : (a) the external supervisory function is no longer the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Judge in the Constitutional Court, (b) consists only of ad hoc Judges in the Supreme Court and Judges of the Judiciary under the Supreme Court, (c) has no authority in the law enforcement of judges ethic’s violations (main institutions), supervision is carried out with the Supreme Court Supervisory Board (Bawas M.A.), (d) the proposed sanctions action is decided with the Supreme Court in the Honorary Panel of Judges and the sentencing of sanctions through the approval mechanism and the Supreme Court Ethics Tribunal for judges who commit ethical violations, (e) The authority of the Judicial Commission relates only to the supporting institution of the Supreme Court in the selection of supreme court nominees, the selection of the appointment of judges, the judge’s ruling research, proposing the promotion and mutation of judges, capacity building and welfare of judges, advocacy of judges. Overall, this study recommends, hierarchically and all rules of implementation are comprehensively reviewed integrally, sought a way out to thread (anuleeren) or deponeeren a legal decision so as not to cause various interpretations and bad precedents due to the application of the law through adaptive processes in the resolution of legal conflicts. Harmonization of judicial power into the ideal format of maintaining social, political and legal certainty. Efforts to strengthen the existence of the Judicial Commission and the protection of the values of external supervisory institutions in the clump of judicial power in accordance with the original intent behind its formation in the 1945 Constitution to carry out the supervisory function of all judicial powers. Keywords: Judicial Commision, External Supervisory, Constitutional Cour